Alex Wagner made some remarks a few days ago that deserve wider circulation ...

[eppur_se_muova]

This was in the context of the two TN lawmakers being "disruptive" and "turning up the volume":

... Yeah, I think that there are some people, when you talk about being too polite, who will say getting louder, oh, what we need in American politics is for more camaraderie. We need everybody to lower the volume. I mean, I would argue that Joe Biden in some ways was the person who made that case running for office in 2020. And at the same time, I think it's really dangerous to suggest that the volume is for equal reasons, right? The volume on the right, the insurrection at the Capitol, the tendency towards revolution has not anything to do with any particular principle. It has to do with power. It has to do with the loss of power, a loss of relevance, and fundamentally a grievance, right? That's not what's happening on the left. And I think it's probably really important for Democrats to make the case that the reason the megaphones are held aloft and the reason the volume's getting turned up is because you're talking about caskets and bodies and survival, right? It's not about Donald Trump staying in office. It's not about being angry about demographic change.

https://steno.ai/alex-wagner-tonight/tennessee-gop-expels-two-black-legislators-fails-to-remove-white

[mopinko]

1. also cuz they cut their mics.

they werent allowed to acknowledge the citizens in regular order, then they cut the mics when they came to the well.
THAT’S why they had a bullhorn.

[2naSalit]

3. That point...

Is only made in about a third of the reporting on this.

[pandr32]

6. This needs to be reported more.

[gab13by13]

2. Same thing as Merrick Garland saying

that he will go out of his way to be non-partisan. That has been the problem with DOJ. Members of Congress who were involved in the insurrection have immunity from prosecution because to prosecute them would be a partisan act.

There was on only one political party that was complicit in the insurrection. Correction: is still complicit in the insurrection.

Members like Loudermilk who gave tours of the Capitol to Magats on 1/5. Members like Scott Perry who was involved in the fake elector plot is only a witness instead of a target and the FBI still isn't allowed to access his phone that was seized last August, and Perry is on a committee investigating the FBI.

Andrew Weissmann would make a good Attorney General, he got convictions from mobsters.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Who said members of congress were immune from prosecution?

Not Garland.

DOJ has been trying to exploit Scott Perry’s phone for several months now.

[Chin music]

10. Convenient.

Predictable. As if it's solving the mysteries of deep space or something hey?
NOT prosecuting speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you say on this topic. I don't think I'm alone in that stance.
Speaking of phones, what's up w the Sec Service phones?
The DOJ needs more balance in hiring. Soon.
Sally Yates should have been our AG. jmho.

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Listening to the silence with your fingers in your ears going "LALALALALALALALALALALALA"

Certainly explains your aversion to reason and evidence based debate.

Staking your position on the absence of information or visible action is a potentially embarrassing strategy.

You completely ignore the fact that DOJ seized Scott Perry’s phone, and has been attempting to access his comms since last summer. Nobody knows what will happen once they are able to exploit his phone and review the evidence it contains…except you, and you are certain they won’t prosecute a sitting member of congress for January 6, based on the fact that they haven’t yet prosecuted any members.

The rest of your post is a standard Gish Gallop which I will ignore.

[Chin music]

12. Oh boy.

I won't even get started.

[Chin music]

17. Did they crack that phone today?

Didn't think so.
You keep making excuses though. That phone isn't the be all, end all to these cases. Why do you defend inaction? Get's old. Especially w the surly dicta all the time. Jesus Christ man. What's your red line for unacceptable inaction? Just curious.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. What you claim is inaction is in reality unknown action

You have a list with a select few acceptable public actions on it- indictments, arrests, perp walks. Anything else that isn’t publicly known you label as “inaction”.

This uncertainty appears to create significant distress for you, which you appear to cope with by presuming intentional inaction on the part of Garland and the DOJ.

Without Perry’s comms, all DOJ has is a batch of documents, some of which were excluded by a judge under the speech and debate clause, others were released to DOJ; the contents of these documents we don’t yet clearly know. Is it enough to indict Perry? We simply don’t know. If you have some “slam dunk” evidence we don’t know about, you should contact DOJ, but I suggest you don’t embarrass yourself further by claiming intentional inaction, or intentional unwillingness to prosecute sitting congress members by the DOJ.

[Chin music]

19. Uncertainty distresses me bc the J6 committee already laid out the case to hang trmp.

And yet no filings.
These are relatively easy cases were they anyone else. Especially J6 and the documents cases. But, the lack of resolve to dive in has cost us, and Democracies globally. (Plus...you are condescending and nasty about it, as if you can say anything and 'get away with it.')
Pence is claiming the speech and debate defense, big whoop. We have mounds of other evidence. Sworn testimony from the Committee witnesses. VIDEO. And juries are hanging folks. (Figuratively) everyday. That IS Slam dunk. At some point you have to jump in. Intent has multiple ways of being proven. Direct testimony isn't the be-all. Go ahead and look that up. Or go to law school?
Justice delayed is justice denied. It's a legal maxim for a reason...bc it's true. And, it's destructive bc -among other things-it just possibly taints any jury pool unnecessarily.
Even if something were filed today, it may be years until a trial. Waiting til tomorrow just gives trmps folks more time to crowd source his defense. And cast unwarranted doubt. Why give him the statutory limits defense on top of it?
Of late, you act like Perry's phone is (yet another) linchpin. It's a gd phone. And there's the other phones he spoke with. Perry's phone is important, but, the evidence we have already is enough for a jury to reasonable conclude guilt. But without charges, it's always something else. Ad infinitum. (And trmp thinks he's clear to run again despite the 14th Am.'s limits on that after you assist, or try to overthrow our govt.) If they can't crack that phone by now, hows throwing more weeks at it strengthen the case? Move on.
Further, just like w trmps other charges in NY, they can be added to after the initial filings as things are uncovered. Filing the case stops the statute of limits. MG has failed us by and large imo, and jack smith is seemingly fast only bc he's being compared to zots produced by mg.
The J6 Committee warned the doj to be investigating while they worked. Looks like mg didn't do what an elected Congress asked, namely, BE READY TO GO WHEN WE WRAP UP.
Admit it, you don't know either. You speculate just as much as anyone else. Stop being so descriptively nasty to anyone who dares challenge your two plus years of assertions now. You don't know, and your guess is as good as any one elses. (Only, you reliably find a way to be nasty to anyone who dares disagree w you.) Your reflexivity of defending the non-action through charges, gets old imo. So does the vitriolic posts. (Cute, I suppose, for the garland enablers. Not so much for the rest of us.)
Better people than you or I are exasperated w the delay like Schiff, McCaskill, Cheney, and a host of others who aren't even elected. See Nicole Wallace, Barb McWade, Harry Litman, Neal Katyal, Glen Kirschner and others.
J6 laid out the prima facie chargeable cases. These cases could be described as languishing at this point.
Enough is enough.
Lastly, I'm not embarrassed by anything I say, and, I don't need opinion advice from you. Thanks.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. That's the difference between you and me.

I have always acknowledged that so much is unknown, that it is impossible, irresponsible and plain inaccurate to assert, with certainty ,that Garland/DOJ are “doing nothing”, guilty of inaction, derelict in their duty, dropping the ball, refusing to prosecute, or any number of other judgements that have been posted.

The little that we do know (which has been gradually increasing) points to the exact opposite conclusion.

You don't know, and your guess is as good as any one elses.

I admit that I don’t know, and I’m not making any guesses- I’m just confronting folks who not only make guesses, but assert, with certainty , that a negative judgement or outcome is inevitable, based on the absence of public information or visible public actions .

I’m saying you don’t know, and couldn’t possibly know, how this is going to turn out (and neither do Schiff, Kirschner, et al), and me pointing that out (repeatedly, as I am a tenacious member of the reality-based community) clearly annoys you. My goal isn’t to annoy, it is to point out that , outside of DOJ, specifically Smith’s team (formerly Garland’s team), no one could possibly know the status of the current investigation or the intentions or state of mind of the investigators .

And that’s the difference between us- you think you know, or the TV lawyers know, and I’m pointing out that none of us know.

[Chin music]

21. I'm glad there's a difference. And you rarely say you don't know. Sorry.

And I confront you the same way. Only I don't insult you or go out of my way to be mean.
That's a big difference.
How about the law school part?

[patphil]

4. John Lewis talked about "getting into good trouble".

Standing firm; standing tall; standing for truth and freedom from oppression.
That's what the two Justin's were doing, along with all those others who were there with them.

[LymphocyteLover]

7. all I ever hear and see from the right is lies, distortion and gross hyperbole

and it's way too loud. They are the political equivalent of social media trolls and too many are exactly that on social media

[mopinko]

14. it's governance by clicks, for the clicks and of the clicks.

[H2O Man]

13. Recommended.

[JudyM]

15. We're all being too uppity for their taste, so their perpetual high volume and acts of

gerrymandering, bullhorning outright lies, etc, etc are warranted, don’t you know…

[crickets]

16. K&R for visibility.